一位法官对麻省理工学院和哈佛大学诉讼案做出两项不同裁决
【中美创新时报2024 年 8 月 20 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）今年早些时候，美国地区法官理查德·斯特恩斯审查了两起诉讼，指控反犹太主义在查尔斯河沿岸两所受人尊敬的大学校园中盛行，并得出了截然不同的结论：针对麻省理工学院的案件将被驳回，但针对哈佛大学的案件将继续进行。《波士顿环球报》记者希拉里·伯恩斯（Hilary Burns）对此作了下述详细报道。
根据每份投诉中概述的指控，哈佛管理人员似乎对犹太和以色列学生的担忧表现出“故意漠不关心”，而麻省理工学院的领导人则没有。
对于一些担心去年秋天哈马斯领导的对以色列的袭击后大学校园出现反犹太主义的人来说，斯特恩斯的裁决——7 月 30 日对麻省理工学院和 8 月 6 日对哈佛大学的裁决——表明学校采取了不同的方法来处理犹太学生和以色列学生的担忧。10 月 7 日对以色列的袭击后，麻省理工学院和哈佛大学都受到了抗议和守夜活动的冲击。这些抗议活动经常使用诸如“从河流到大海，巴勒斯坦将获得自由”和“起义革命”等口号，许多人认为这些口号是反犹太主义的。
针对哈佛大学和麻省理工学院的修正投诉显示了这两所大学在回应担忧方面存在细微的差异。例如，麻省理工学院的管理人员在沟通方面往往更直接、更透明。
根据针对哈佛大学提交的 200 多页的修正投诉，那些表达反犹太主义担忧的学生有时会被忽视或被引导到大学的咨询服务部门。相比之下，去年春天，当一名学生给麻省理工学院的管理人员发邮件，表达对校园内亲巴勒斯坦人营地的担忧时，校长梅丽莎·诺布尔斯的回应更为直截了当：“我们理解您的担忧，我们正在努力与抗议者一起朝着建设性的方向前进。在我们做这项艰苦的工作时，我们希望您能耐心和理解。”
两所学校在处理校园紧张局势方面的另一个显著差异是，去年 12 月，麻省理工学院董事会在校长萨莉·科恩布鲁斯出席了一场臭名昭著的校园反犹太主义国会听证会后迅速支持她。哈佛大学董事会最终支持了当时的校长克劳迪娜·盖伊，但那时，有关她学术作品抄袭的指控已经传开。盖伊于 1 月 2 日辞职。
代表哈佛学生提起诉讼的 Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP 律师事务所合伙人马克·E·卡索维茨 (Marc E. Kasowitz) 表示，斯特恩斯发现麻省理工学院的管理人员比哈佛大学更一贯地处理亲巴勒斯坦抗议活动。该公司最近几个月还对包括纽约大学在内的其他几所校园提起了反犹太主义指控，纽约大学已于 7 月达成和解。
“法官发现麻省理工学院的行为绝不完美，它可能没有做它应该做的一切，[但]它至少试图采取合理行动，”卡索维茨说。
目前尚不确定针对哈佛大学提起的诉讼中的指控是否成立——该大学对许多事实提出异议——但卡索维茨和他的合伙人马克·P·雷斯勒表示，随着案件进入调查阶段，他们对此持乐观态度。投诉称哈佛违反了《民权法案》第六章，该章规定接受联邦资助的项目和活动不得基于种族、肤色或国籍进行歧视。
“我们认为，从这些文件中发现，就我们收集的文件和我们记录的证词而言，将详细表明哈佛绝对拒绝负责任地解决这个问题，”卡索维茨说。
例如，卡索维茨认为，哈佛大学管理人员本应追究去年春天在校园内未经授权的亲巴勒斯坦人扎营活动的参与者违反校规的责任。原告声称，他们受到了扎营活动示威者的骚扰和跟踪。据学生报纸《哈佛深红报》报道，尽管遭到教职员工的反对，但仍有 13 名学生因参与扎营活动而未能按时毕业，但其中 11 名学生已经获得了毕业证书。
“他们必须为自己的行为承担真正的后果，这些后果需要包括实际的纪律处分，”卡索维茨说。
在麻省理工学院，警方于 5 月清理了扎营活动，逮捕了 10 名学生示威者。
哈佛大学“离开被占领的巴勒斯坦”联盟没有回应置评请求。亲巴勒斯坦抗议者及其支持者否认他们的示威活动是反犹太主义的。
“尽管我不同意裁决将反种族灭绝抗议者描述为对犹太学生构成实际身体威胁的说法，但我很高兴，与哈佛的诉讼不同，麻省理工学院的诉讼被驳回了，”麻省理工学院语言学教授米歇尔·德格拉夫说。
曾在哈佛法学院学习的斯特恩斯在裁决中写道，根据修改后的投诉，常春藤盟校似乎“辜负了犹太学生”。
“哈佛的反应充其量是优柔寡断、犹豫不决，有时甚至自相矛盾，”斯特恩斯写道。
哈佛大学的一位发言人表示，该校“相信，一旦本案的事实清楚，就会发现哈佛的行动是公正的，并且深切关注支持我们的犹太和以色列学生。”
哈佛大学和麻省理工学院都成立了反犹太主义工作组；两名参与者辞去了哈佛的努力。
哈佛案的原告正在寻求金钱赔偿，他们希望哈佛采取政策确保犹太学生受到保护，包括使用国际大屠杀纪念联盟采用的有争议的反犹太主义定义。一些犹太学者，包括 IHRA 定义的原作者，对它经常被用来审查反以色列言论的方式提出异议。
根据哈佛裁决，斯特恩斯表示，麻省理工学院未能“预见到一些示威者——无论他们对美国和以色列政策的反对有多么真诚——在事件展开时会表现出的偏执行为”，该裁决提到了麻省理工学院的解雇。
“但尽管麻省理工学院未能洞察一切，但它确实以一种可能过于慎重但始终如一的使命感做出了回应，即恢复校园的秩序和言论自由，”斯特恩斯写道。
麻省理工学院的一位发言人表示，这一决定“不言而喻”。
“我们感谢法院仔细评估了指控并驳回了原告的诉求，”发言人在一份声明中表示。“我们的领导人已经并将继续支持我们的学生，并致力于让我们所有人都能在追求麻省理工学院的重要使命的同时成功地共享校园。”
前美国地区法官、哈佛法学院高级讲师南希·格特纳 (Nancy Gertner) 表示，斯特恩斯的裁决并不意味着针对麻省理工学院的案件已经结束。
“从某种意义上说，哈佛的投诉是一个模板，如果他们聪明的话，他们会查看哈佛的投诉，”格特纳说。“所以读者的问题是，麻省理工学院和哈佛大学对类似情况的反应是否不同？”
代表麻省理工学院学生的律师之一马琳·J·戈登伯格 (Marlene J. Goldenberg) 表示，她的团队正在“评估所有可用的选择，包括但不限于上诉。”
“我们对这一决定以及它将对本月返回校园的犹太学生产生的影响感到失望，”戈登伯格说。
两所大学的学生和教职员工都担心，随着加沙战争的持续，以及巴勒斯坦人死亡人数的上升，秋季学期将带来更多的紧张局势、抗议和不和。亲巴勒斯坦组织者告诉《波士顿环球报》，他们仍然致力于引起人们对战争的关注，并呼吁他们的大学撤出以色列资产。
麻省理工学院研究生、该校以色列联盟主席塔莉亚·汗 (Talia Khan) 表示，在离开几周后最近返回剑桥后，她感到被校园里的同学和同事排斥和孤立。现在，这位机械工程专业的学生担心秋季抗议活动会继续发生。
“这是一个非常不舒服的环境，”汗说。“我觉得我无法专注于我的研究。我觉得麻省理工学院没有做任何事情来确保我不会感到被骚扰。”
汗不是起诉麻省理工学院的原告，他说以色列联盟计划在本学期继续其倡导工作。
“归根结底，我们想要的只是能够拥有一个校园，让我们能够在这里工作，让我们感到安全，让我们感到舒适，[并且]我们不会经常感到被骚扰，”汗说。
题图：5 月，在剑桥举行的哈佛大学 2024 届毕业典礼上，示威者在哈佛园外抗议。RICK FRIEDMAN/AFP via Getty Images
附原英文报道：
One judge, two different rulings on MIT, Harvard lawsuits
By Hilary Burns Globe Staff,Updated August 19, 2024
Demonstrators protested outside Harvard Yard during Harvard University’s class of 2024 graduation ceremony in Cambridge in May.RICK FRIEDMAN/AFP via Getty Images
US District Judge Richard Stearns earlier this year reviewed two lawsuits alleging antisemitism was allowed to flourish on two revered college campuses along the Charles River and came to starkly different conclusions: The case against Massachusetts Institute of Technology would be dismissed, but the one against Harvard University would continue.
Based on the allegations outlined in each complaint, Harvard administrators appeared to have displayed “deliberate indifference” to the concerns of Jewish and Israeli students while MIT leaders did not.
For some worried about antisemitism on college campuses following the Hamas-led attack on Israel last fall, Stearns’ rulings — regarding MIT on July 30 and Harvard on Aug. 6 — indicate that schools have taken different approaches to addressing concerns from Jewish and Israeli students. Both MIT and Harvard were rocked by protests and vigils after the Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Those protest often included the use of slogans such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “intifada revolution,” which many view as antisemitic.
The amended complaints filed against Harvard and MIT show nuanced differences in how the two universities responded to concerns. MIT administrators were often more direct and transparent in their communications, for example.
According to the more than 200-page amended complaint filed against Harvard, students who reached out with concerns about antisemitism were at times ignored or directed to the university’s counseling services. In contrast, when a student emailed MIT administrators with concerns about the pro-Palestinian encampment on its campus last spring, chancellor Melissa Nobles responded with a more straightforward response: “We understand your concern and we are working to move in a constructive direction with those who are protesting. We ask for your patience and understanding as we do this hard work.”
Another notable difference between the schools’ handling of campus tensions occurred when MIT’s board quickly backed president Sally Kornbluth last December after her appearance in a now-infamous congressional hearing on campus antisemitism. Harvard’s board eventually backed then-president Claudine Gay, but by that time allegations of plagiarism in her academic work were circulating. Gay resigned on Jan. 2.
Marc E. Kasowitz, a partner at law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, which filed the complaint on behalf of Harvard students, said Stearns found MIT administrators handled pro-Palestinian protests more consistently than Harvard. The firm has also filed complaints alleging antisemitism against several other campuses in recent months, including NYU, which settled its suit in July.
“The judge found that MIT’s conduct was by no means perfect, and it may not have done everything that it should have done, [but] it at least tried to act reasonably,” Kasowitz said.
It is yet to be determined if the allegations in the lawsuit filed against Harvard will hold up — the university disputes many of the facts — but Kasowitz and his partner Mark P. Ressler said they are optimistic as the case enters discovery. The complaint alleges that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which says programs and activities receiving federal funding may not discriminate based on race, color, or national origin.
“We believe that the discovery from those files, in terms of the documents that we collect and the depositions that we take, are going to show in great detail Harvard’s absolute refusal to address this issue responsibly,” Kasowitz said.
For example, Kasowitz argues, Harvard administrators should have held participants of the unauthorized pro-Palestinian encampment on its campus last spring responsible for breaking university rules. The plaintiffs allege they were harassed and followed by demonstrators involved with the encampment. Thirteen students were not allowed to graduate on time because of their participation in the encampment, despite pushback from faculty, but 11 of those students have since received their diplomas, according to the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper.
“They have to face real consequences for their actions, and those consequences need to include actual discipline,” Kasowitz said.
At MIT, 10 student demonstrators were arrested when the encampment was cleared by police in May.
The Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine coalition did not respond to a request for comment. Pro-Palestinian protesters and their supporters have rejected claims that their demonstrations are antisemitic.
“Though I disagree with the ruling’s portrayal of the anti-genocide protesters as posing an actual physical threat to Jewish students, I am relieved that, unlike the Harvard lawsuit, the MIT one was dismissed,” said MIT linguistics professor Michel DeGraff.
Stearns, who studied at Harvard Law School, wrote in his ruling that the Ivy League university appears to have “failed its Jewish students,” based on the amended complaint.
“Harvard’s reaction was, at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory,” Stearns wrote.
A spokesperson for Harvard said the university “is confident that once the facts in this case are made clear, it will be evident that Harvard has acted fairly and with deep concern for supporting our Jewish and Israeli students.”
Both Harvard and MIT formed task forces to address antisemitism; two participants resigned from Harvard’s efforts.
Plaintiffs in the Harvard case are seeking monetary damages, and they want Harvard to adopt policies to ensure Jewish students are protected, including usage of a controversial definition of antisemitism that has been adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Some Jewish scholars, including the original author of the IHRA definition, take issue with the way it is often used to censor anti-Israel speech.
Stearns said that MIT, for its part, failed “to anticipate the bigoted behavior that some demonstrators — however sincere their disagreement with U.S. and Israeli policies — would exhibit as events unfolded,” according to the Harvard ruling, which references the MIT dismissal.
“But despite MIT’s failure of clairvoyance, it did respond with a perhaps overly measured but nonetheless consistent sense of purpose in returning civil order and discourse to its campus,” Stearns wrote.
A spokesperson for MIT said the decision “speaks for itself.”
“We appreciate that the Court carefully assessed the allegations and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “Our leaders have and will continue to support our students and focus on making it possible for all of us to share the campus successfully while pursuing MIT’s vital mission.”
Stearns’ ruling doesn’t mean the case against MIT is over, said Nancy Gertner, a former US district judge and a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School.
“In one sense, the Harvard complaint is a template, and if they are smart, they will check out the Harvard complaint,” Gertner said. “So the question for readers is, [could it be] true that MIT and Harvard responded differently to similar situations?”
Marlene J. Goldenberg, one of the attorneys representing MIT students, said her team is “evaluating all available options, including but not limited to an appeal.”
“We are disappointed with the decision and the impact it will have on Jewish students as they return to campus this month,” Goldenberg said.
Students and faculty members at both institutions fear that the fall semester will bring more tensions, protests, and discord as the war in Gaza continues, and the death toll among Palestinians rises. Pro-Palestinian organizers have told the Globe they remain committed to bringing attention to the war and calling on their universities to divest from Israeli assets.
Talia Khan, an MIT graduate student and president of the university’s Israel Alliance, said she feels ostracized and isolated by peers and colleagues on campus upon recently returning to Cambridge after several weeks away. Now, the mechanical engineering student is concerned about protests continuing in the fall.
“It’s just such an uncomfortable environment,” Khan said. “I don’t feel like I am able to focus on my research. I don’t feel that MIT is doing anything to make sure that I don’t feel harassed.”
Khan, who was not a plaintiff in the suit against MIT, said the Israel Alliance plans to continue its advocacy work this semester.
“At the end of the day, all we want is to be able to have a campus in a state in which we are able to do our work, where we feel safe, where we feel comfortable, [and] we don’t feel harassed on a regular basis,” Khan said.
